TomoCredit Lawsuit: Lyon Firm Files Consumer Fraud Class Action Over Credit Boost Claims

The Lyon Firm has filed a consumer protection lawsuit against TomoCredit, Inc., the San Francisco-based fintech company behind the TomoBoost credit-building service. Filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on January 15, 2026, the class action complaint alleges widespread deceptive marketing practices, false advertising, and unlawful subscription cancellation procedures that have left thousands of consumers financially harmed.

The legal action, brought by The Lyon Firm and the Law Offices of Francis J. Flynn, Jr., represents plaintiff William Geagley and potentially thousands of similarly situated consumers who subscribed to TomoBoost expecting meaningful credit score improvements but allegedly received a worthless product instead.

Contact our attorneys for more information on this case or to consider filing a similar complaint. 

The Core Allegations Against TomoCredit

Misleading Credit Score Promises

TomoCredit marketed its TomoBoost service with bold claims promising users could achieve credit score increases of 105 to 200+ points. The company’s website prominently featured language such as “Build Credit Fast” and advertised “Instant” credit improvements for its premium VIP plan, which costs approximately $129.99 monthly.

According to the plaintiff, these representations created reasonable consumer expectations that credit score improvements would occur within days or at most within 30 days. However, the lawsuit contends that the service fails to deliver on these promises. The plaintiff in the case reported using TomoBoost for approximately one month without observing any measurable credit score improvement attributable to the service.

The complaint points to a fundamental problem: TomoCredit allegedly cannot deliver the promised credit-boosting results, rendering the entire service essentially worthless to consumers who pay substantial monthly fees expecting tangible benefits.

Impossible Cancellation Process

Beyond the failure to deliver promised results, the lawsuit details an equally troubling pattern of making subscription cancellation deliberately difficult or impossible. When consumers attempt to terminate their TomoBoost subscriptions, they reportedly encounter a maze of obstacles designed to prevent successful cancellation. The complaint alleges that TomoCredit:

• Fails to provide a functional online cancellation mechanism
• Requires consumers to schedule mandatory phone consultations before allowing cancellation
• Displays cancellation scheduling calendars with no available appointment slots for months
• Continues charging consumers even after repeated cancellation requests
• Forces subscribers through multiple “retention offers” before processing cancellation

Despite multiple attempts to cancel his subscription through the company’s website, the plaintiff encountered repeated technical failures and error messages. Unable to cancel through normal channels, he was ultimately forced to change his payment method to an inactive card to stop recurring charges—an extraordinary step consumers should never need to take.

Violations of California Consumer Protection Laws

The lawsuit asserts multiple legal violations, including:

• California Automatic Renewal Law (ARL): TomoCredit allegedly enrolled consumers in automatic renewal programs without clear, conspicuous disclosure of terms and without obtaining proper affirmative consent. The company also failed to provide simple, effective cancellation mechanisms as required by law.
• California Unfair Competition Law (UCL): The complaint alleges unfair, unlawful, and fraudulent business practices that deceive consumers and cause financial harm exceeding any utility the practices provide.
• California Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA): TomoCredit allegedly misrepresented the characteristics, benefits, and qualities of its services, advertised with intent not to provide services as advertised, and inserted unconscionable provisions in consumer contracts.
• Negligent Misrepresentation and Unjust Enrichment: The company allegedly made material misrepresentations about its service’s effectiveness and cancellation process while profiting from consumer subscriptions for services that don’t work as promised.

Widespread Consumer Complaints

The lawsuit references hundreds of consumer complaints across multiple platforms including Trustpilot, the Better Business Bureau, and WalletHub. Common themes include:

• No credit reporting or improvement despite months of payments
• Inability to cancel despite numerous attempts
• Continued charges after cancellation requests
• Lack of responsive customer service
• Better Business Bureau “F” rating

Why Hire The Lyon Firm for Deceptive Marketing and Consumer Fraud Cases

Proven Track Record in Consumer Protection

The Lyon Firm has nearly two decades of experience protecting consumers from harmful and deceptive marketing practices. Attorney Joseph Lyon and his legal team have successfully represented plaintiffs nationwide in complex class action litigation involving false advertising, deceptive marketing, and consumer fraud.

A Focus on False Advertising Law

Consumer fraud cases require deep understanding of federal and state consumer protection statutes, including California’s robust consumer protection framework. The Lyon Firm’s attorneys possess comprehensive knowledge of:

• Federal Trade Commission regulations and enforcement principles
• State unfair and deceptive acts and practices (UDAP) laws
• Automatic renewal law compliance requirements
• Class action certification procedures
• Complex litigation against well-funded corporate defendants

While handling sophisticated class action matters, The Lyon Firm maintains a client-focused approach that prioritizes individual attention and clear communication. Clients receive direct access to experienced attorneys who can explain legal strategies, answer questions, and provide updates throughout the litigation process.

The Lyon Firm advances all litigation costs and accepts cases on a contingency fee basis, meaning clients pay no upfront fees or expenses. This arrangement ensures access to quality legal representation regardless of financial circumstances, with attorneys only recovering fees if they achieve successful outcomes for clients.

What Affected Consumers Should Do

If you subscribed to TomoBoost and experienced similar issues—whether failure to see promised credit improvements, difficulty canceling your subscription, or continued charges after requesting cancellation—you may have legal rights. Document your experience by preserving:

• Subscription agreements and payment records
• Screenshots of advertising claims you relied upon
• Communications with TomoCredit regarding service or cancellation
• Credit reports showing lack of improvement
• Bank statements showing continued charges

Contact an experienced consumer protection attorney to discuss your potential claims. The Lyon Firm offers free, confidential consultations to evaluate cases and explain available legal options.

Consumer protection laws exist specifically to prevent the type of deceptive practices alleged in this lawsuit. When companies prioritize profits over honest dealing with customers, legal action serves both individual justice and broader market integrity.

If you believe you’ve been affected by TomoCredit’s alleged deceptive practices or have questions about other consumer fraud and false advertising claims, contact The Lyon Firm for a free consultation.